One Protester Accused of Lying; Subcommittee Clears Another

The Administrative Board subcommittee which investigated last month's attempted blockade of a South African diplomat has found that one of the 15 undergraduate protesters lied to an officer of the University and has exonerated another of all charges, the students said yesterday.

These two students were among those charged last month with attempting to blockade two of three exits from a lecture hall where South African Vice Consul Duke Kent-Brown was speaking.

In letters to the other 13 students the subcommittee wrote that their blockade "action constitutes serious misconduct in this University" and it recommended that the Ad Board put them on probation.

The subcommittee also recommended probation for the student charged with lying, Dorothee E. Benz '87, as her action also "constitutes serious misconduct in this University."

The recommendations by the subcommittee are non-binding and the full Ad Board may consider other punishments when it consider that case next Tuesday. The 14 students said they plan to appear before the Board to defend themselves against what they called spurious charges.

The exonerated student, Douglas C. Rossinow '88, said yesterday that Dean of Freshmen Henry C. Moses, who chaired the subcommittee, had notified him that the subcommittee found that he had not participated in the attempted blockade.

Moses could not be reached for comment.

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57,chairman of the full Ad Board, said yesterday thathe would not comment on the cases while they werestill in progress.

The protesters had originally been asked toanswer up to six charges filed by Dean of StudentsArchie C. Epps III including failing to obey anofficer of the University, putting the vice consulin "physical fear of his safety," participating in"a forceable blockade," interfering with thepolice in the discharge of their duties, lying toan officer of the University and grabbing theSouth African's arm.

Only three students were accused of lying toEpps. Epps charged the three with deliberatelymisleading him when they discussed their plans tohold a rally outside the building where Kent-Brownwould be speaking.

The subcommittee upheld the lying charge onlyin the case ofBenz, the students said yesterday. None of thefive other charges brought by Epps were upheld.

Mitchell A. Orenstein '89 and Siddhartha Mitter'89, the two other students that faced the lyingcharge, said they had both received letters fromMoses which said they had been found guilty onlyof participating in the blockade.

"My feeling was that Epps' charge [of lying]was totally unfounded," Mitter said. "Thesubcommittee accepted that."

However, a letter sent by Moses to Benz said,"We find that you lied to Dean Epps when inresponse to his question whether you were planninganything 'inside,' you replied 'No...'"

While Benz said yesterday that Moses' letter toher is factually accurate, she said that it failsto take into account the rest of her conversationwith Epps on the day of the protest.

"I was the only one [of three accused students]who used the word 'no,''' she said. "But I pointedeverything I was saying towards not disrupting thespeech." Benz said she argued before thesubcommittee that she was not lying because theblockade was not designed to permanently disruptthe speech.

She said she testified before the subcommitteethat group was only attempting to force Kent-Brownto leave by the back exit when he had finishedspeaking.

Benz said she did not participate in theattempted blockade because she had been appointedas the group's negotiator.

The subcommittee's letter to Benz recognizedthat she was not physically involved. It said "thesubcommittee understands that you did notpersonally sit in front of an exit door, [but] youwere party to both the planning and the executionof the events that led directly to the ViceConsul's leaving the room. We therefore concludethat you share in responsibility for thedisruption of the Vice Consul's speech."

The students criticized the subcommittee'sdecisions. "They've found that the actions werewhat we said they were but said we were disruptiveanyway," Orenstein said. "It's not in the spiritof fairness to accept our argument and charge usfor that anyway.